How to compare lightsaber duelists from different eras?

How do you go about doing this?

You can sort of scale different era Force users against one another by their feats (however unreliable that is), and it's more common to find accolades and comparisons there. But how are we supposed to compare how potent duelists different characters are when they never faced one another, and have no common enemies to base their abilities off of?

I suppose there are a few methods that roughly work:

[list=1]
[*]Trying to find a few common reference points. .ie, Yoda being considered the greatest Jedi swordsmaster of all time -> any other Jedi probably weaker, so how well does your character of interest do against, say, Revan, if they do worse against Revan than Dooku against Yoda, they're prob weaker than Dooku
[*]Guessing based on the eminence of their accolades - Dooku is probably a better duelist than Kyle Katarn by what people say of him
[*]Guess based on a superposition of how good they are relative to their era and how good the era is relative to the mythos, .ie we know the PT is the dueling golden age of the Jedi, and Kaan's Brotherhood is weak.
[*]Analyze their actual fighting styles and how good they should be given their years of training and apparent talent
[*]Scale from their strength in the Force
[/list=1]

Post your opinions plebs

I heared Tuk'atas work best as a measuring stick.

Assume anyone who isn't from the PT/OT era is crap.

And do the opposite with Force powers. 👆

KMC 2016. 🙂

👆

Originally posted by cs_zoltan
I heared Tuk'atas work best as a measuring stick.

If only that worked, because that makes hindered Jedi!Kun >> PoD Bane >> Prodigal!Revan >> AOTC Anakin & Obi-Wan.

In the realm of Star Wars inconsistencies it is utterly useless tripe though.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
KMC 2016. 🙂

Yet here we are.

bump

It's kinda hard. Given SWTOR's nature as a video game, it's next to impossible to deduce who's Ahsoka level, Kenobi level, Windu level, etc. just accolades and biased inference.

You can sort of get a feel if we fix Palpatine > Vitiate and Yoda > Revan/HoT.

You confused me at "Palpatine > Vitiate." 🙂

More like Palpatine>>>>>>>>>Vitiate

Originally posted by The Ellimist

[list=1]
[*]Trying to find a few common reference points. .ie, Yoda being considered the greatest Jedi swordsmaster of all time -> any other Jedi probably weaker, so how well does your character of interest do against, say, Revan, if they do worse against Revan than Dooku against Yoda, they're prob weaker than Dooku

Yoda specifically is probably not the best example point, because he's considered to be so by people who, themselves, haven't met duelists from other eras!

There is a fair amount of era-crossing stuff, though. You do run into a couple big sith or jedi who've visited a number of timeframes.

Guess based on a superposition of how good they are relative to their era and how good the era is relative to the mythos, .ie we know the PT is the dueling golden age of the Jedi, and Kaan's Brotherhood is weak.

Kaan's brotherhood is weak in the force, probably not in sword skills, since they did swordfight a lot...

But anyway, yes, judging relative to their era makes a lot of sense. Raw force power and talent is not something that'd change much- outside of extraordinary circumstances like the chosen one- so, "Here's a most-talented of their era fully trained and with a ton of experience, there's another most-talented of their era fully trained and with a ton of experience, they both fill similar roles, so, they're probably in the same ballpark. "

This is how to judge Yoda, really- since he's been the best for hundreds of years running, we can be pretty sure he's impressive even by the standards of high-potential very talented people.

Or, "random rank-and-file Jedi/Sith probably aren't going to change much (unless noted to be undertrained and such), so how they are in comparison to those," can work too...